Ruin may include Vita, PS3 play for one price—but it’s up to Sony

We spoke with developer Idle Minds about the upcoming game Ruin, where you can …

Ruin was shown off during Sony's press event, and the hack-and-slash title looked solid. After playing the game on both the PS3 and the Vita, I'm convinced of the game's quality; this is a fun action title. Heavy attacks caused the bodies of the enemies to fly into the air, and the environment was nicely destructible. Jeff Litchford, VP of Production with Idol Minds, also showed off how easy it is to save the game on the PS3 and pick it up a moment later on the Vita, with your location and character transmitted through the cloud. I asked him the question everyone is wondering about: do you need two copies of the game to play it in this way?

If Sony decides that you need to buy the game twice to get cross-platform gaming to work—and Litchford told me they could also create multiplayer games in this genre that would allow you to use the Vita to play co-op with a friend on the PS3—then they're going to have angry consumers and a missed opportunity.

"Yes, you will need a copy of the game on your PS3 and on your Vita," he explained. "We have an opinion on whether that should cost money, but that's up to Sony marketing. You have an opinion, so you should let Sony marketing know what you think."

I said I could talk about this topic all day and Litchford nodded with enthusiasm. "Well then, speak up! Let's hear you say it!" he told me.

Attention, Sony marketing: Release the PS3 version of the game at retail product packed with a code to download the Vita version at no additional cost. You'll have a bunch of happy gamers as a result. It's pretty clear what the game's developer would prefer. The ball is in your court.

35 Reader Comments

If the goal is to promote the inter-playability of the PS3 and the Vita, then incentives need to be made for gamers to go out of their way to experience that. I wouldn't even shoot down a 2-for-the-price-of-1-and-then-some, since (AFAIK, correct me if I'm wrong) the Vita is supposed to be able to play the game on its own, without being "hooked up" to the PS3.

OTOH...

Sony has a lot of bank to recoup as a result of the tsunami damages and the ridiculous rash of hacks, so as a money-making/restore-our-reserves scheme, I could totally see them trying to charge double. Would it work? Probably not. But Sony's track record lately hasn't been the best...

Not to mention that it would completely undermine whatever it is Nintendo is trying to do with the Wii-U.

It took them how many years to come up with the Move to compete with the Wii motion control. You would think Sony would love to release a one-game, two (or more?)-screen system before Nintendo releases their's.

But should Sony also offer the title for download for the PS3 if the Vita version is purchased?

And what if the costs for PS3 and Vita are different?

Sony has some thinking to do about this, but I'm sure devs aren't all going to agree on this, either. But, Vita will sell a LOT better if they do only require one copy of the game to be purchased for both systems.

Why not split the difference and make it a small additional fee? If the initial cost is 59.99, make it another $5-10 to play on the Vita. From a gamer standpoint this is probably not as ideal, but I suspect it would make developers more amenable to this in the future.

Why not split the difference and make it a small additional fee? If the initial cost is 59.99, make it another $5-10 to play on the Vita. From a gamer standpoint this is probably not as ideal, but I suspect it would make developers more amenable to this in the future.

I agree, having a $5-$10 fee to transfer games would be the best compromise. I guess the only problem would be is what if I only want to play it on the PSV? Do I still have to pay 59.99? Or is it 39.99, and then an extra $25-$30 to transfer to the PS3?

But should Sony also offer the title for download for the PS3 if the Vita version is purchased?

And what if the costs for PS3 and Vita are different?

Sony has some thinking to do about this, but I'm sure devs aren't all going to agree on this, either. But, Vita will sell a LOT better if they do only require one copy of the game to be purchased for both systems.

I think the most reasonable solution to this problem is to offer Vita codes/discs for free with the PS3 copies (presumably at the higher PS3 price) and have the Vita-packaged editions (presumably cheaper, in line with portable game prices) not include PS3 versions. It's a good tradeoff between being fair to consumers and making enough profit.

Not to mention that it would completely undermine whatever it is Nintendo is trying to do with the Wii-U.

It took them how many years to come up with the Move to compete with the Wii motion control. You would think Sony would love to release a one-game, two (or more?)-screen system before Nintendo releases their's.

Nintendo and Sony have both experimented with handheld-to-console interactivity before. The Wii-U's strengths will be ubiquity and complete lack of latency. For the PSV/PS3 you'd need to take the approach of what Nintendo did with GBA/GCN connectivity: download client software to the handheld device, then communicate between the two separate pieces of client software. You either have to have the same software running on the PSV and PS3, or specific client software written for the PSV to communicate via wifi to the console.

For the Wii-U, it's realtime, minimal latency, transferrence of whatever the Wii-U wants to display down to your handheld controller. So even if you got a PSV into the hands of every single person who owns a PS3, you'd still have a trade-off: better performance and instant-on status of the portable screen on the Wii-U vs true portability for the PS3/PSV combo.

That doesn't lessen that I approve of the developer doing this. As it has been for a long time, it's a good time to be a gamer.

Well, Sony is letting people game-share, so I would imagine that they will be persuaded to allow it. Even if it were like an extra $5 fee or something or made into some sort of DLC, that would be worth it.

It all depends on how good the graphics are on both systems. Right now, you buy a minis title, and you can play it on both the console and on the PSP; however, minis generally look like poop on the PS3. If this is somehow different, and the PS3 version of the game has PS3-quality graphics, it may warrant a little extra money...

Pricing issues aside, I can see the temptation for Sony to mimic Wii U functionality with PS3 + PSV. I'm just thinking whether it will be feasible to implement PS3 (or future console) + ANDROID interaction: Instead of catering to a small subset of users who simultaneously own PS3 and PSV, we are now talking about the entire Android userbase. If Sony can utilize the PS Suite framework and implement some sort of handheld/console gaming interaction, this might even get Android users who don't have a Sony console yet consider jumping on board.

Of course there are lots of technical hurdles to pull this off, but I can see huge potential in this, and it would be a shame if this potential is left untapped. Why be afraid of the so called cellphone competition? Just embrace it!

Vita has a hard enough road trying to sell people $40 games when the world is moving to games below $5 on phones. Bumping that up to $100 to get PS3 and Vita versions of the same game is doomed to failure.

If they want anyone to use this kind of cross-console capability, they absolutely have to do some sort of reasonably priced bundle. Nobody is going to buy both versions at full price just so they can transfer their save file back and forth.

If Sony wants to trump the wiiu they would allow all the games to have a psvita component to them. Not a whole game mind you, but a complimentary game that helps you control the game with the pspvita. Imagine a ps3 game controlled by the psvita. Sony could do big things with it, but they have a history of squandering their chances.

The plus side of allowing free or cheap psvita connectivity is it gives everyone a very good reason to get a pspvita, and that's more money in sonys bank.

Why not split the difference and make it a small additional fee? If the initial cost is 59.99, make it another $5-10 to play on the Vita. From a gamer standpoint this is probably not as ideal, but I suspect it would make developers more amenable to this in the future.

or make the ps3 version 39 with an added 10 for the vita version.

ps3 users get a good deal and if you have a vita and can't stand to be away from the game an extra 10 gets you entry. also cheaper than the 59$ horsecrap price that seems so prevalent.

If Sony is going to make this work they can't stick it to the customers. This needs to be one affordable price.

You can install it on either system, then the 2nd player copy can be used as long as the other device is within wi-fi range. I believe this is how nintendo did their wi-fi co-op sharing?

They could easily do something like this.

Since the PS3 and Vita are so net savvy, you cold buy this, install it on your ps3, then when you want to do co-op w/ a VIta buddy, you send them a one time code via the net from your PS3, or Vita, whichever the game is installed to and the 2nd person can install the game via the code for 24hrs. Once the time frame is up, another code must be sent. This would allow someone to save a gave and play it later. But would keep it from being usable w/o the code.

I could be wrong but this isn't *Sony* Sony determining the pricing structure, but SCEA, the publisher of the title, right? The way the article is written makes it seem like "the guys who gave you Rootkit" are making this decision.

1) The PS3 version comes with a voucher for downloadable PSV.2) Owners of PS3 version can buy for $10 the PSV version from the ingame shop (think Super Stardust Ingame Shop) - this is for people who buy used copies3) Owners of PSV version can buy for $20 the PS3 version from the ingame shop

Not to mention that it would completely undermine whatever it is Nintendo is trying to do with the Wii-U.

It took them how many years to come up with the Move to compete with the Wii motion control. You would think Sony would love to release a one-game, two (or more?)-screen system before Nintendo releases their's.

Nintendo and Sony have both experimented with handheld-to-console interactivity before. The Wii-U's strengths will be ubiquity and complete lack of latency. For the PSV/PS3 you'd need to take the approach of what Nintendo did with GBA/GCN connectivity: download client software to the handheld device, then communicate between the two separate pieces of client software. You either have to have the same software running on the PSV and PS3, or specific client software written for the PSV to communicate via wifi to the console.

For the Wii-U, it's realtime, minimal latency, transferrence of whatever the Wii-U wants to display down to your handheld controller. So even if you got a PSV into the hands of every single person who owns a PS3, you'd still have a trade-off: better performance and instant-on status of the portable screen on the Wii-U vs true portability for the PS3/PSV combo.

That doesn't lessen that I approve of the developer doing this. As it has been for a long time, it's a good time to be a gamer.

The game IS the client software. The problem with the GCN/GBA connection is that a) you needed to use a cable b) the screen was just a dumb non-updating client and c) there was no WiFi back then in large numbers.

Attention, Sony marketing: Release the PS3 version of the game at retail product packed with a code to download the Vita version at no additional cost. You'll have a bunch of happy gamers as a result. It's pretty clear what the game's developer would prefer. The ball is in your court.

[sarcasm]Attention, naive gamers: Stop thinking we game businesses sympathize with your weird gaming sensibilities. For us, this is business, and our business is money. With those pesky hackers making us look bad, we now need to make more money! M-O-N-E-Y! Dollars, euros, pounds, you name it, we need it! So please, take this ball with you on your way out.

Why not just create a new line of games that run on both and feature some interoperability between the systems? They could call them PSU games to mock Nintendo! That could make for some confusion, though: PS3 games, PSV games, Move games, and then these new games.

It seems reasonable to me to sell it for a total of $60. Buy the PS3 version for $60 with a redeemable code for the Vita free, or $50 and sell the Vita version for $10 on the PSN for owners of the PS3 version. Playstation Plus subscribers get the Vita version free.

Vita buyers get it at whatever price Vita games will sell at, and get the PS3 version for the difference to $60, or a discounted version for Playstation Plus subscribers at the difference to $50.

I'm sure this would seem fair to everyone, and it will promote both the interoperability of the systems and Playstation Plus.

[sarcasm]Attention, naive gamers: Stop thinking we game businesses sympathize with your weird gaming sensibilities. For us, this is business, and our business is money. With those pesky hackers making us look bad, we now need to make more money! M-O-N-E-Y! Dollars, euros, pounds, you name it, we need it! So please, take this ball with you on your way out.

Not to mention that it would completely undermine whatever it is Nintendo is trying to do with the Wii-U.

It took them how many years to come up with the Move to compete with the Wii motion control. You would think Sony would love to release a one-game, two (or more?)-screen system before Nintendo releases their's.

Nintendo and Sony have both experimented with handheld-to-console interactivity before. The Wii-U's strengths will be ubiquity and complete lack of latency. For the PSV/PS3 you'd need to take the approach of what Nintendo did with GBA/GCN connectivity: download client software to the handheld device, then communicate between the two separate pieces of client software. You either have to have the same software running on the PSV and PS3, or specific client software written for the PSV to communicate via wifi to the console.

For the Wii-U, it's realtime, minimal latency, transferrence of whatever the Wii-U wants to display down to your handheld controller. So even if you got a PSV into the hands of every single person who owns a PS3, you'd still have a trade-off: better performance and instant-on status of the portable screen on the Wii-U vs true portability for the PS3/PSV combo.

That doesn't lessen that I approve of the developer doing this. As it has been for a long time, it's a good time to be a gamer.

The game IS the client software. The problem with the GCN/GBA connection is that a) you needed to use a cable b) the screen was just a dumb non-updating client and c) there was no WiFi back then in large numbers.

Of course the game is the client software. What I mean is that with the GCN/GBA connection, and with the PS3/Vita connection, there is binary software being processed by the handheld device. With the GBA link up, there was always a "transfer" period you had to wait on for some GBA software to be pushed down to the handheld so that it could communicate with the GCN game. With the Vita it would be a similar situation OR a separate build of the game (as in the case of Ruin). With the WiiU the situation /seems/ to be that all the software is running directly on the console's "deck", with the controller being a "dumb" terminal. While it does mean that you have more bandwidth being taken up (because you're streaming greater than DVD resolution video directly to the device), it's made specifically to do that in realtime and then takes minimal direct controller input in the opposite direction which is processed directly by the same device both for TV and in-controller display. For the handheld-to-console setups you're doing networking (or networking-like) gaming communication: Make sure to have binaries running on both devices, you input a button press, it's processed by the corresponding device, reactions of the game are processed locally, reactions communicated with the other device, other device processes effects on its own client software and any inputs put directly into it, communicates those changes back, rinse, repeat.

It's just a slightly more complicated setup, technically than having what amounts to a secondary wireless display being processed by the same exact device that's handling all the game logic (in the case of the WiiU) in an otherwise perfectly normal console-style "here's a controller and here's the console" setup.

NeoTechni wrote:

auhim wrote:

The Wii-U's strengths will be ... complete lack of latency.

You're expecting the impossible. There WILL be latency, the laws of physics demand it

Ugh. You're right. I apologize for the oversight on my part. I tend to try to avoid blanket statements, especially ones I know are false. I meant "minimal" latency because there's no additional controller latency in the controller-to-console direction than on other wireless console controllers, because the wireless video stream would be logically disconnected from it (versus a "peer to peer" setup when you have binaries running on two separate systems both simultaneously running game logic and both needing to process the same button presses--in which case the button presses would generally be processed by one device, then the resulting changes in the game world passed on or checked by the other device).

Why not split the difference and make it a small additional fee? If the initial cost is 59.99, make it another $5-10 to play on the Vita. From a gamer standpoint this is probably not as ideal, but I suspect it would make developers more amenable to this in the future.

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking: either have 2 versions, one with Vita download code at $10 more. Or just have one version with a code that allows the Vita download for only $10. I'd be ok with either of those.